UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 01-623

E LLI S C. S MI TH , A PP EL L ANT ,

V

. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE

.

Be fore I VERS, Chief Judge, and STEI NB ERG and KASOL D, Judges

. O R D E R
This case has bee n rema

nded to this Court by

the U.S. Court of Appea ls for t h e F eder al Circuit (Fe dera l Ci rc u i t ) i n light of its re versa l of this Court's pre cede ntial opinion in W anner v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 4 ( 2003) ( W an ne r I ), reve rs ed in pa rt, 370 F.3d 1124, ( Fe d. Cir. 2004) ( W anner II ). Smith ( Ellis) v . Principi , 2004 WL 2030123 (F ed. Cir. Aug . 23, 2004) ( Smith II )

. In t h e F eder al Circuit' s review of W an ne r I , a c a s e in w h ic h th is Co u rt h a d ( 1 ) r e ma n d e d a sepa rate

rating s-for-ea ch-e ar tinnitus claim to the Boa rd for consideration of 38 C.F.R. § 4.25(b) (1998 & 1999) and (2) revie wed 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diag nostic Code (DC) 6260 (1998) , and dec lare d a par t of it i nv a lid , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit he ld that thi s Court ha d a c te d " outsi de of its jur isd ic tio n" wh e n it revie wed DC 6260 as to whether that DC was "in violation of a statutory rig ht" or "not in ac corda

nce with law" as provided by

38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3) (C), and reve rsed this Court’s dec ision in W an ne r I , 17 Vet.App. at 14-15, to strike the trauma require ment from pre -1999 DC 6260. W anner II , 370 F.3d at 1131. There is no indication that the Feder al C ircuit intended to disturb the W an ne r I opinion’s remand to the B oard f or consider ation of § 4.25(b)

. On J une 10, 2003, this Court, by per curiam de cision, order ed a D ece mber 12, 2000, de cision of the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (B oard or BV A) rever sed i n part and vacated in part. Smith ( El lis ) v. Principi , 17 Vet.App 168 (2003) (per curiam order ) ( Smith I ), re v e rse d in pa rt , Sm ith II , su pra
. I n the B VA dec ision, the Board, inter alia, ha d (1) de nied a De partment of V eter ans Aff airs (V A) compensa ble disability rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, DC 6260 (1998) , for the a ppellant’s ser

viceconne c te d

ti n n it u s p r io r to Ju n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 , an d

( 2 ) a s s ign e d

anin it ia l V A d is a

b il it y r a ti n g o f 1 0 %, but no highe r, fr om J une 10, 1999, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, DC 6260 (1999) . This C ourt' s per curiam order ( 1) would have reve rsed the B oard' s denial of a n eff ective da te prior to J une 10, 1999, for the a ssignment of

a compe nsable rating a

nd rema nded the matter

for t h e aw ar d of an e arlier
e f f e c ti v e d a te ; a

n d ( 2 ) p u r s u an t t o th e p r e c e d e n ti a l o p in io nin W an ne r I , would have va cate d the Boa rd dec ision as to the issue of separ ate 10% tinnitus rating s in eac h ear and rema nded that matter for c onsideration in light of 38 C.F.R. § 4.25(b) ( 2002). Sm ith I , 17 Vet.App. a

t 172-73.2

I n its Decem b er 2 0 00 decision, the B oard de termined that the ve tera n did not satisfy

the
c ri te ri a fo r a c omp e ns a

ble ratin g pr ior

to Jun e 10 , 1 99 9, be c a

us e his tinnit

us wa s n ot " pe rs ist e nt" under pr e-1999 D C 6260, which had provide d for a compensa ble rating f

or tinnitus where it wa s

" [ p ] e rsi ste nt as a s y

mptom of head injury , concussion[,] or ac oustic trauma" , 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, DC 6260 (1998) (e mphasis added)

. On J une 10, 1999, DC 6260 wa s revised to provide for a 10% ratingfor " [t ]i nnitus, re c urre nt " , a n d th e " h e a d in jur y , concussion[,] or ac oustic trauma" require ment was de leted. 64 F ed. Reg . 25,202, 25,206 (1999) ; 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 4.87, DC 6260 (1999 & 2003) [hereinaf ter " curr ent DC 6260" ] (emphasis added) . The a ppellant arg ued here (1) that his tinnit us "unde niably

satisfie[d] the plain meaningof ' persistent' " in pr e-1999 D C 6260 and, thus, the Boa rd’s conclusion t o the contrary was " leg al er

ror" , and (2) that the B oard ha d misint erpr eted both pre -1999
and c ur re nt DC 626 0 whe n it ha d fa ile d to aw ard se pa ra te 10 % d isa

bil ity ratin g s f or e a c h e ar f or his service -conne cted tinnitus. Smith I , 17 Vet.App. at 169

. As to the issue of sepa

rate rating s for e ach e ar, the Court held in Smith I that the " W

anner [ I ] pr e c e de nt a

pp lie s to the ins tant c a se and re qu ir e s a re mand fo r r e a dju dic a tio n, in l ig ht o f 3 8 C. F .R. § 4 .2 5(b ) (2 00 2), of th e app ell ant 's cla im for tw o 1 0% r ati ngs. " Smith I , su pra . As to the meaning of " persistent" in pre-1999 D C 6260, the Court he ld that "be cause ' persistent' and ' rec urre nt' a ppear to have ove rlappingdefinitions . . . the Boa rd' s conclusion that the ap p el l an t 's tinnitus was not

' pe rs ist e nt' a s re qu ir e d by pr e -1 99 9 DC 62 60 wa s r e a c he d in a mann e r t hat w a s ' arb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, [and] an abuse of discre tion'" and ther efore m u s t be re verse d. Smith I , 17 Vet.App. at 171. Fur thermore , the Court noted that, in spite of t h e S ec re tary ' s Supplementary I nformation in the Federa l Re giste r i nd ic a tin g that " a re a din g of

' pe rs ist e nt' a s a

mor e str ic t st and ard

tha n ' re c ur re nt' insofar a s constancy

is conce rned a

pplies an unrea listi c eva luation criterion f or [tinni tus] ", the Boa

rd used t his "unr ealistic evaluation criter ion" to deny the appe llant's c laim. Ibid. Moreove r, the Court held that the B oard ( 1) had " selec tively " pa raphr ased the Secre tary ' s comments in the Supplementary I nformation and " omitted any ref ere nce to the Sec reta

ry ' s conce ssio n t h ere that an attribute of constanc y wa s not well suited for e valuatingtinnitus " a nd (2) ha d "ba sed its conclusion [as to the
mea ni ng of "p ers is ten t"] so lel y on on e di cti on ary

defi ni ti on of 'per si st ent '." Ib id

. The Secre tary appea led this Court' s decision to the Fe dera l Circ uit. Smith II , supra. On Aug us t 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 th e F e d e r a l Ci r c u it r e v e r s e d , s tati n g th a t " w e r e v e r s e th e Co u rt o f Ap peals for Veter ans Claims' de termination in this cas e t h at i t had jurisdiction and re mand for f urther proce eding s consistent with our decision in W anner [ II , s up ra ] ." Ib id . As in W

anner II , there is no indication that the Fe dera l Circuit intended to di sturb the Smith I decision' s remand to the B oard f or c on sid e ratio n o f § 4. 25 (b ). Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit iss ue d it s ma

nd a te on Oc tob e r 1 4, 20 04 , a

nd the c a se is the re fo re no w b a c k b e fo re thi s Co ur t.
The Court notes that the Secre tary , in his Februa ry 20, 2002, brief in this Court, did not addre ss the appellant’ s argument (Appe llant’s Br ief (B r.) at 4-5, 10-13) that, pursuant to § 4.25(b), he wa s entitled to a 10% tinnitus rating for ea ch of his ea rs. Secr etar

y ' s Br . at 1-14. Indeed, the Se c re tary a sse rt e d in

his br ie f t

hat th e " [a]p pe lla

nt c ites no a

uth or ity " fo r h is p os iti on that he is entitled to separa

te 10% ratings for

eac h ear . Br . at 7.3

Acc ording ly , th e Co u rt i s in n e e d o f s u p p le me n ta l b r ie f

in g f r o m t h e Se c r e ta

r y o nthe following matters: (1) T o show cause why the Court should not remand to the B oard the matter of the ratin g un de r p re -1 99 9 D C 62 60 fo r t he pr ov isi on

of an a de qu a te state me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s, see 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)( 1), as t o the Board' s deter mination of t he meaning of "pe rsistent" under that DC in light of the Boa

rd' s having selec tively para phrase d the Secre tary ' s Supplemental I nformation and not havingtaken into ac count all of th e S ecr etar y ' s releva nt discussion therein, see 59 Fe d. Reg .17,295, 17,297 (Apr. 1 2 , 1 9 94), and ha ving r elied on a sing le dictionary definition of "pe rsiste nt", see Theiss v. Princ ipi , 18 Vet.App 204, 210- 11 (2004) ( criticizing Ge nera l Counsel prec eden t o p i n io n, on whi ch Bo ard h ad re li ed, for "sel ect iv e us e of anarr ow s et o f def in it io ns ") (m ot. fo r r e c on sid . f

ile d Aug . 1 7, 20 04 ); see Sm ith I , 17 Vet.App. at 170-71; and (2) to addre ss the appellant' s argument that 38 C.F.R. § 4.25(b) ( 1999) entitled him to separat e ratings of 10% for tinnitus in eac h ear

under 38 C.F .R. § 4.87a, DC 6260 (1998 & 1999).

On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that, not later tha n 14 day s afte r the date of this order , the Secr etar y file, and
serve on the appe llant, a supplemental brie f addr essing the fore g oing matters. I t is further ORDERED that, not later than 14 day s afte r service of the Secre tary ' s supplemental brief , the appellant f

ile, and ser

ve on the Sec reta

ry , a supplementa l response.

DATED: November 2, 2004 PER C URI AM.